<a href="http://www.alternet.org/">AlterNet</a> has an article about religious fundamentalism right here in the good 'ol US of A called <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13481">Pledging Allegiance To Fundamentalism</a> about the recent Pledge of Allegiance uproar. The pledge has been used as a fundamentalist ploy before, when the words 'under God': <bq>... were added in 1954, when Congress, reacting to a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, inserted those two words and turned the pledge into a public prayer of sorts. (The point was to contrast the godly United States of America with the godless Soviet Union.)</bq> The reason this issue is so contentious is that most people can't see the problem that the court pointed out. They don't see the pledge as an endorsement of God, religion, or even a specific brand of religion. They're capable of saying the pledge doesn't mean anything when children recite it <i>every schoolday</i>, then, at the same time, can become incensed at the suggestion of changing this supposedly meaningless pledge. What is the purpose of the pledge anyway? Well, when Eisenhower signed the 1954 act to alter the pledge, he was quite specific about it: <iq>From this day forward, millions of our school children will daily proclaim ... the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.</iq> That's not too vague on the religious bit, eh? President Bush's response was to announce the next day, in a press conference, that he has a simple yardstick to use when choosing Supreme Court Justices: <iq>We need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God and those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.</iq> So, it's a good thing that fundamentalism is pretty much dead in America today. Nothing to see here. The history of the Pledge is available <a href="http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm">here</a> and mentions an interesting detail about Bellamy's original pledge: <bq>His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]</bq> What a noble beginning. Again, there are those who would argue that 'we didn't know any better back then' and 'you can't judge history', but I think you can. Bellamy certainly knew better...he just was constrained by prevailing opinion of the day, which was prejudiced against women and blacks. <a href="http://www.satirewire.com/">SatireWire</a> has the article <a href="http://www.satirewire.com/news/june02/pledge.shtml" title="I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic For Which it Stands, One Nation, (Sponsorship Opportunities Available), Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All">I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag...</a>, which poses some possible compromises and repercussions of the recent decision. The favorite and most appropriate so far is <iq>One nation, (sponsorship opportunities available).</iq> <a href="http://www.plastic.com/">Plastic</a> has a followup to the furor over the Pledge of Allegiance called <a href="http://www.plastic.com/article.html?sid=02/06/30/23285364&mode=nested&threshold=3">Patriotism Even If We Have To Beat It Into You</a>. Apparently, a student in Alabama raised his arm in silent protest during the Pledge of Allegiance and was offered the choice of a beating (spanking) or missing the graduation ceremony. Some comments here were interesting, like <a href="http://www.plastic.com/comments.html?sid=02/06/30/23285364;cid=11">You've gotta love this part</a> by ksu93: <bq>Think about the massive rebuke all over the country last week in response to the 9th Circuit's Pledge of Allegiance ruling. Commentator after commentator went on and on criticizing the student and her father as being thin-skinned and for whining about a minute and meaningless little matter. But God forbid someone should raise his arm up in the air silently. Now that's just downright disruptive and uncivil! People saying the Pledge were "bothered" by this kid holding his arm up in the air? Talk about a bunch of pansies. Suck it up and be the tough little patriots you always claim you are. If you can't tolerate a little dissent because it will hurt your feelings, tough shit.</bq> An anonymous poster put up <a href="http://www.plastic.com/comments.html?sid=02/06/30/23285364;cid=44">Patriotic Observance</a>, which mentions that, as a teacher, he/she takes the time alloted for the pledge and has students learn and memorize the Bill of Rights, which is actually part of the law of the country, rather than just a nationalistic oath. But, given the reaction of the U.S. congress (dropped everything to scream the pledge, unaltered, at each other and start to pass legislation to reverse the 9th Circuit decision) and the media, Connie Chung asked the lawyer who tried the case whether he was <iq>proud to be an American</iq>, the poster says: <bq>And you know what breaks my heart? Knowing that if Congress had to choose which students would grow up to be the "best" Americans, they wouldn't pick my young authorities on the current state of the Fourth Amendment----they'd pick those kids who were coached to scream, "Under God!" when the Pledge was recited at that school in Sacramento.</bq> (the post also includes this lovely quote from Mark Twain: <iq>Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.</iq>)